PLEASE NOTE THAT WE FULLY EXPECT THE SITE TO BE VERY BUSY ON LAUNCH DAY - NOT LEAST WITH THREE MAJOR EVENTS. WE WILL VERY LIKELY RESTRICT IT TO FORUM MEMBERS ONLY - WITH NO ACCESS TO THE FORUM FOR GUESTS - WHEN THE SITE BECOMES TOO BUSY. READ THIS TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31697.0)

First Facebook post this morning from the 30th Space Wing. Hopefully the future ones will be more useful :P

Happy Sunday, fans! I hope you all have recovered from all fun and excitement from yesterday's Exotic Car Show! Which one was your favorite? Stay tuned this morning for up-to-date launch information for the SpaceX Falcon-9 Cassiope!

Okay, I dug around and came up with the location of American Spirit, a vessel they used previously:http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=367035570&centerx=-120.3313&centery=29.25173&zoom=10&type_color=9 (http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=367035570&centerx=-120.3313&centery=29.25173&zoom=10&type_color=9)

This is a commercial launch company that wants to provide commercial launch services. None of the world's other companies in this business throttle information this way. Did anyone from MDA even attend this launch? You wouldn't know it from the webcast.

This is a commercial launch company that wants to provide commercial launch services. None of the world's other companies in this business throttle information this way. Did anyone from MDA even attend this launch? You wouldn't know it from the webcast.

- Ed Kyle

Sure they do. Remember the Sea Launch failures? They just cut the feed and went silent for nearly a day before acknowledging that their rocket exploded.

Very strange coverage! It seemed like the loss of signal happened everytime they went to the infrared view of the engine.

Indeed, and why would the audio signal also cut out ?

Probably some kind of freaky channel splice arrangement where the audio is added upstream of the filter that switches to the 'please stand by' screen in case of video signal loss so that it cuts off the audio too. They seemed to work out that was happening about half-way through the flight and rectified it.

ULA rarely do post-launch pressers although NASA always do. I'm thinking that we'll have to wait for more conventional press releases from SpaceX, MDA, CSA and maybe 30th SW (the last being somewhat unlikely) to get detailed information. Expect SpaceX to ration information about the core recovery for as long as possible, success or failure, until their team have had at least one run-through of the data.

Of course, American Islander steaming into San Diego towing a space rocket behind it would be kind of difficult to miss unless they do it at night.

This is also strange. The data dropouts appear to have represented skips in time on the real time broadcast. If you try to make the "tape" time line up with the SpaceX clocks (there are two and there is a 14 second discrepancy between them), it does not. SpaceX doesn't want anyone to be able to confirm the event times, perhaps?

The data dropouts appear to have represented skips in time on the real time broadcast. If you try to make the "tape" time line up with the SpaceX clocks (there are two and there is a 14 second discrepancy between them), it does not. SpaceX doesn't want anyone to be able to confirm the event times, perhaps?

The YouTube uploader trimmed the dropouts. No reason to sit through them on a recorded video.

"I am truly honored to work with such an amazing team here atVandenberg," said Balts. "With safety at the forefront during all launchoperations, we highlighted our mission three times in one week, culminatingin today's historic launch with SpaceX. What I have seen in the past fewmonths as Wing Commander is a true testament to the professionalism anddedication the men and women of Vandenberg have toward our mission."

30th Space Wing's 1st Air and Space Test Squadron was the lead forall launch site certification activities at Vandenberg for SpaceX as anEvolved Expendable Launch Vehicle New Entrant. Under the authority of theSpace and Missile Systems Center, the Squadron evaluated SpaceX's flight andground systems, processes and procedures for this inaugural space launchcampaign for the upgraded Falcon 9 rocket.

Musk: will next attempt recovery on 4th F9 v1.1 launch, of CRS-3. That vehicle may also have landing legs. #falcon9

Wont they need to do more Grasshopper flights first to get the landing system down? There is a big difference between landing in the middle of the ocean and an exact spot on land.

Adding landing legs does not mean they will land it on land - they might just add them to test the shape of the stage, the diffirent center of gravity. I doubt they'll do full boostback - need to build a landing area for that first anyway.So, same flight as today, just with added legs / leg deployment just above the ocean is a possibility.

Musk: will next attempt recovery on 4th F9 v1.1 launch, of CRS-3. That vehicle may also have landing legs. #falcon9

Wont they need to do more Grasshopper flights first to get the landing system down? There is a big difference between landing in the middle of the ocean and an exact spot on land.

Adding landing legs does not mean they will land it on land - they might just add them to test the shape of the stage, the diffirent center of gravity. I doubt they'll do full boostback - need to build a landing area for that first anyway.So, same flight as today, just with added legs / leg deployment just above the ocean is a possibility.

It may be that their models show having the legs deployed may help in the rolling issues?

Musk: will next attempt recovery on 4th F9 v1.1 launch, of CRS-3. That vehicle may also have landing legs. #falcon9

Wont they need to do more Grasshopper flights first to get the landing system down? There is a big difference between landing in the middle of the ocean and an exact spot on land.

Adding landing legs does not mean they will land it on land - they might just add them to test the shape of the stage, the diffirent center of gravity. I doubt they'll do full boostback - need to build a landing area for that first anyway.So, same flight as today, just with added legs / leg deployment just above the ocean is a possibility.

Heh. All they need to do is lay out a concrete pad. And since the stage is empty at landing, it doesn't need to be engineered to take a lot of weight.

How much you want to bet we will see some concrete truck activity in the next few months?

Musk: attempted relight of upper stage, encountered anomaly. Understand what it is and will fix before next flight. #falcon9

Ah yes, that was on the L2 thread a few hours ago. Glad it's a minor issue.

And another one on semantics. Musk didn't say it's a minor issue, he said they know what it is and they'll fix it before the next flight. The latter being a no-brainer since they need the restart on the next flight. The tricky part will be to be confident enough about the fix to make SES (or their insurer) risk their expensive bird on it.

My WAG is that the stage simply ran out of RCS during or slightly before the landing burn, then began to slowly roll up and eventually flamed out. Essentially, it used up too much RCS during prior phases, like the flip before the three engine burn, or the controlled descent through the atmosphere before the third burn. Hopefully fixable by simply finding a more fuel efficient trajectory for those steps using the real data they got from this launch, which then leaves enough RCS to last through the entire landing. The fact that they got to the landing burn at all means they hopefully don't need a huge increase in efficiency.

Musk: attempted relight of upper stage, encountered anomaly. Understand what it is and will fix before next flight. #falcon9

Ah yes, that was on the L2 thread a few hours ago. Glad it's a minor issue.

And another one on semantics? Musk didn't say it's a minor issue, he said they know what it is and they'll fix it before the next flight. The latter being a no-brainer since they need the restart on the next flight. The tricky part will be to be confident enough about the fix to make SES (or their insurer) risk their expensive bird on it.

That's the tricky part (bold mine).SpaceX had this flight to convince them, now they must rely on something other.

FWIW, the American Islander is now shown and being Anchored off the coast of baja. I'd wager that this is the site where it recovered "portions" of the Falcon 9. The American Spirit meanwhile has disappeared from the charts. Not sure what that means.

Now that TLEs are available for stage-2, can anybody work out quick&dirty ground visibility locations/times/directions for early revs, to seek out serendipitous visual sightings related to fuel dump and other post-insertion dynamic events.

Thanks. I didn't know about the DANDE adapter (is there a paper or something that describes this?)And I don't know when POPACS and CUSAT do their thing - was guessing POPACS separation happens shortlyafter ejection but CUSAT is commanded at a later date.

In any case, we now have 20 objects cataloged, so I wonder if the extra ones are debris associated with the secondstage restart problem.

It's worth posting this video taken from the ground, as it shows the first stage firing in puffs shortly after stage separation - our first look at the first stage deceleration burns! (from 4:00 onwards)

I'm of the mind that those mystery puffs we are seeing in that video are not first stage related, but are rapidly expanding gas from the exhaust of the MVac on the second stage. Based on when the call over countdown net referenced the relight of the first stage engines, that happened much later than this.

I notice F9 v1.1 staging is at about T+ 2:54. A few seconds before staging occurs flight control announces the rocket is at 61 km altitude, 45 km downrange and moving at 1.8 km/s. At about T+ 8:00 they announce "First stage is ... relighting at this time." Is the T+ 8:00 burn the supersonic retro burn or the landing burn? What is the time is the burn that wasn't announced?

Looks like the attempted second stage re-start was seen over Reunion Island, on the opposite side of the Earth from VAFB: http://wikkit.tumblr.com/post/62684205892/tracking-a-new-space-ufo (http://wikkit.tumblr.com/post/62684205892/tracking-a-new-space-ufo) / http://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/1ne46k/saw_this_tonight_in_reunion_island_what_is_it/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/1ne46k/saw_this_tonight_in_reunion_island_what_is_it/)

I wonder if the stage broke up while attempting that? (due to the very high number of objects found related to this launch by NORAD, currently at 20)

I'm of the mind that those mystery puffs we are seeing in that video are not first stage related, but are rapidly expanding gas from the exhaust of the MVac on the second stage. Based on when the call over countdown net referenced the relight of the first stage engines, that happened much later than this.

From the SpaceX broadcast this morning you can actually see the RCS system firing on S1 right after separation.

It's worth posting this video taken from the ground, as it shows the first stage firing in puffs shortly after stage separation - our first look at the first stage deceleration burns! (from 4:00 onwards)

It's also the first video to clearly show the fairing vent covers popping off at 1:37.

Longueuil, Quebec, September 29, 2013 — The Canadian Space Agency is proud to announce that Canadian satellite, Cascade Smallsat and Ionospheric Polar Explorer (CASSIOPE) was successfully launched today at noon (12:00 p.m. EDT). Lift off took place from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.

CASSIOPE is the first Canadian hybrid satellite to carry a dual mission in the fields of telecommunications and scientific research. The main objectives are to gather information to better understand the science of space weather, while verifying high-speed communications concepts through the use of advanced space technologies.

The Honourable James Moore, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for the Canadian Space Agency, commented on this first launch under his tenure. “This is a moment of pride for all Canadians. With the CASSIOPE mission, the Government reaffirms its commitment to support Canada’s space industry while using space technologies to advance knowledge in areas of critical scientific inquiry,” said Minister James Moore.

“The Canadian Space Agency is proud to contribute to the CASSIOPE mission,” said newly appointed President of the Canadian Space Agency Walter Natynczyk. It enables the integration of the Government’s research and development agenda while partnering with Canadian space industry and university science sectors”.

MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates Ltd. led a Canadian industrial team that included Magellan Aerospace of Winnipeg Manitoba, COM DEV International of Cambridge, Ontario and the University of Calgary, Alberta in the development of the CASSIOPE mission. The small satellite mission was enabled through contributions from the Canadian Space Agency and Industry Canada’s Technology Partnerships Canada.

Using the latest TLEs for the 20 objects now in the catalog (A to T):- perigee altitudes range from 235 km (F) to 444 km (M)- apogee altitudes range from 1350 km (A) to 1590 km (S)- inclinations range from 80.961° (A) to 81.035° (K)

So that's confirmation that it disintegrated?

20 objects is much too few for a stage breakup event. 6 nanosats, upper stage, and CASSIOPE takes care of 8 objects.

Edit: Another object appeared, so thats now 21. This is getting odd.Edit2: NVM, appears to be related to ASTRA 2E.

20 objects - or even 10, given the known 10 payload + operational parts - is not too few for this longafter a breakup event. In the cases where hundreds of debris objects were generated, most of them were not cataloged until weeks or months later. So the data are *not inconsistent* with a breakup at this stage, but there are also otherexplanations (including milder energetic events resulting in release of insulation, ice, etc. - or even softwareerrors in the radar tracking creating spurious objects, rare nowadays but with SpaceFence gone something could be squirrely?) - without decay rates and RCS info it's a little early to conclude anything, and since SpX say they didn't have a breakup I'm inclined to look for anotherexplanation for the time being, while waiting for data to accumulate.

Using the latest TLEs for the 20 objects now in the catalog (A to T):- perigee altitudes range from 235 km (F) to 444 km (M)- apogee altitudes range from 1350 km (A) to 1590 km (S)- inclinations range from 80.961° (A) to 81.035° (K)

So that's confirmation that it disintegrated?

It's usually preferable to get another count at a later time when there is re-ignition failure. First counts in such cases have a tendency of counting reflections of unburned puffs of fuel clouds as inanimate objects. Later on those disappear.

There was a sighting of the upper stage over southern Africa. Not sure if this adds any evidence for or against the hypothesis that there might have been an energetic breakup but it is still pretty cool. It reminds me of the sighting over Australia of a previous Falcon upper stage. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/ufo-over-indian-ocean-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-sparks-sightings-4B11297922

There was a sighting of the upper stage over southern Africa. Not sure if this adds any evidence for or against the hypothesis that there might have been an energetic breakup but it is still pretty cool. It reminds me of the sighting over Australia of a previous Falcon upper stage. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/ufo-over-indian-ocean-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-sparks-sightings-4B11297922

I'm of the mind that those mystery puffs we are seeing in that video are not first stage related, but are rapidly expanding gas from the exhaust of the MVac on the second stage. Based on when the call over countdown net referenced the relight of the first stage engines, that happened much later than this.

So from 4:16 - 4:29 that haloed shape is an initial exhaust cloud emitted from the 2nd stage engine?

May I raise the point that the videos from South Africa and Mauritius show a symmetric expanding cloud, what might be expected from a stable dispenser. This is markedly unlike the spiral clouds painted bytumbling stages. Is that a clue that no energetic event disturbed the orientation of the second stage?

May I raise the point that the videos from South Africa and Mauritius show a symmetric expanding cloud, what might be expected from a stable dispenser. This is markedly unlike the spiral clouds painted bytumbling stages. Is that a clue that no energetic event disturbed the orientation of the second stage?

btw. Space-Track TLE's are not supposed to be posted. Though, posting the catalog number and what Ed posted are fair game.

This didn't come from Space-Track. It came from the DANDE web site! It is presented as an "in house TLE".

- Ed Kyle

The speculation is unlikely because the upper stage was photographed over South Africa venting off unused fuel about an hour after launch.....https://twitter.com/RavenXV/status/384668909007155200/photo/1

"Following separation of the satellites to their correct orbit, the Falcon 9 second stage underwent a controlled venting of propellants (fuel and pressure were released from the tank) and the stage was successfully safed. During this process, it is possible insulation came off the fuel dome on the second stage and is the source of what some observers incorrectly interpreted as a rupture in the second stage. This material would be in several pieces and be reflective in the Space Track radar. It is also possible the debris came from the student satellite separation mechanisms onboard.

SpaceX will continue to review to help identify the source of the extra debris, but our data confirms there was no rupture of any kind on the second stage."

There's a related article to this video and it says the PA system at the site was apparently carrying the engineering net and not the countdown net so that's why they didn't hear a countdown. Don't know where they got the idea the launch was supposed to go off at 09:21, though.

There's a related article to this video and it says the PA system at the site was apparently carrying the engineering net and not the countdown net so that's why they didn't hear a countdown. Don't know where they got the idea the launch was supposed to go off at 09:21, though.

Here is the article: http://www.space.com/23009-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-launch-test-first-person.html

The new NSF article (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/ses-8-florida-next-falcon-9-v1-1-launch/) on the next F9 v.1.1 flight quoted Elon as saying:

Quote

“We essentially saw the engine initiate ignition, get up to about 400 psi and then it encountered a condition that it didn’t like. It may have been due to an extended spin start, maybe, but this is speculative. So it initiated an abort of the restart. But we have all of the data.

“Before deciding what the issue was, I think we want a bit more time to read the data, before coming to a conclusion,”

Please take any technical discussion of this to the discussion thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32859.0).

As far as the countdown goes, there was one being broadcast over the VAFB countdown net live and accurately as I was listening to it while I watched the launch in person. The Livestream which someone had over their phone was delayed about 30 seconds. Why the PA folks were surprised by the launch I cannot know for sure but it probably has something to do with their being PA. ;)

1) relatively stable orbit; initial TLE appears to be noisy2) no TLE after Sep 30; could be some transient event or already decayed3) rapid decay4) member of high perigee group5) circularized orbit?6) object G was classified as rocket body

There appear to be two equally sized groups of objects based on their perigee, one around 325 km and below and one around 400 km. Object S (39283) almost circularized its orbit at ~600 km, unless there is a mistake in the conversion(?).

EDIT: some IDs and object names were probably reassigned between epochs

Hmmm .. this is certainly odd. The first set of orbital numbers were issued right after launch, with a high perigee, and a low apogee. The second set of numbers are from more recently, and the perigee has dropped by 100 km, but the apogee is much higher.

How does a decaying object raise its perigee that much? How does the perigee drop that much without a propulsive maneuver?

It doesn't make sense without an alternate explanation. Perhaps jettisoning fuel at apogee somehow dropped the perigee, and jettisoning oxidizer at perigee raised the apogee.

How does a decaying object raise its perigee that much? How does the perigee drop that much without a propulsive maneuver?

As footnote (1) states, initial TLEs are often noisy, especially the eccentricity. It is safer to compare semi-major axes (avg. radius) of a series of subsequent TLEs. That would have bloated the table and hence the notes.

I have received interesting news on the CUSat mission from the CUSat team:

The CUSat mission was originally to consist of two satellites - CUSat-Top and CUSat-Bottom, which would have performed target-inspector operations. Unfortunately, the CUSat-Top satellite was damaged during vibration testing so only the CUSat-Bottom satellite was launched.

It's early days, but are there any hopes of better (closer-up) launch pics from SpaceX? Those so far havebeen from far away or middle-distance, with the exception of a couple on their site which are a little spoiled imho by wide-angle distortion.

If everything would be peachy, why not publish the Big and Great Success? If their grasshopper reaches a whopping height of 350 meters, they publish it; why keep quiet on the details of the recent launch. Makes we wonder: cui bono.

The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE. They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.

Some of the confusion of posters earlier in this thread is because the objects SpaceTrack are now calling A to Gare NOT the objects they were calling A to G a week ago. The orbital parameters didn't change becauseof drag or inaccurate data, they changed because they now refer to completely different objects.

As far as I can tell, the old A, C, E, F and G are no longer being tracked. The old D is now being called J.The old B was a mix of objects including the new B but also including elsets that belong to debris objects.

The new A, C, D, E, F do not have elsets prior to Oct 7 or so.The POPACS objects D, E, F still seem to be jumping around and it may be another few days before they sort out which is which.

The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE. They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.

Some of the confusion of posters earlier in this thread is because the objects SpaceTrack are now calling A to Gare NOT the objects they were calling A to G a week ago. The orbital parameters didn't change becauseof drag or inaccurate data, they changed because they now refer to completely different objects.

As far as I can tell, the old A, C, E, F and G are no longer being tracked. The old D is now being called J.The old B was a mix of objects including the new B but also including elsets that belong to debris objects.

The new A, C, D, E, F do not have elsets prior to Oct 7 or so.The POPACS objects D, E, F still seem to be jumping around and it may be another few days before they sort out which is which.

Moving letter labels for orbital elements is normal. The letter labels are not fixed and are re-assigned based on arbitrary ordering.

The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE. They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.

Some of the confusion of posters earlier in this thread is because the objects SpaceTrack are now calling A to Gare NOT the objects they were calling A to G a week ago. The orbital parameters didn't change becauseof drag or inaccurate data, they changed because they now refer to completely different objects.

As far as I can tell, the old A, C, E, F and G are no longer being tracked. The old D is now being called J.The old B was a mix of objects including the new B but also including elsets that belong to debris objects.

The new A, C, D, E, F do not have elsets prior to Oct 7 or so.The POPACS objects D, E, F still seem to be jumping around and it may be another few days before they sort out which is which.

Moving letter labels for orbital elements is normal. The letter labels are not fixed and are re-assigned based on arbitrary ordering.

It's normal since around the late 1980s, yes. It's bloody annoying though and from a data integrity point of view it's a Bad Idea. And I'm not entirely convinced it's consistent with the powers delegated to USAF from COSPAR to reassign these (in principle, the letter labels belong to the international COSPAR organization, part of the ICSU, an NGO. I imagine in principle COSPAR could decide to take back that authority someday if USAF do things with the labels that are too silly).

Changing IDs of the cataloged numbers is also "normal" too - I mean that 39268 became 39276 and 39265 ceased to exist and the number reassigned to a different object. And that's also very annoying, because it means the numbers DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. You can't have any confidence that two elsets with the same catalog number refer to the same object.

Again, that's something that started in the 1980s or so, when the aesthetics of the current state of the catalog became more important that the data integrity of the historical database.

Changing IDs of the cataloged numbers is also "normal" too - I mean that 39268 became 39276 and 39265 ceased to exist and the number reassigned to a different object. And that's also very annoying, because it means the numbers DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. You can't have any confidence that two elsets with the same catalog number refer to the same object.

Thanks for the insight. So, the 5-digit catalog ID is not a primary key in the database sense and consequently referential integrity is NOT a given when following individual objects across different epochs.

Prior to posting the dual-epoch-table a few days ago and in an attempt to ensure consistency I had checked the additions and updates of the change report (SSR parts 4 and 5). Back then there was no log of modified catalog numbers and only a single entry about object G now being considered the rocket body. In the meantime the SSR lists a number of name changes, however, as we have seen that does not help much when IDs are reassigned. BTW, Celestrak seems to use yet different names for some objects. Furthermore, the various TLE tables/reports seem to get updated each on their own schedule and therefore can be out of sync. So much about the lessons learned.

Now, most readers presumably don't care about those details and simply want to know what the status is. So, below is a snapshot of 27 objects currently associated with launch 2013-055 (but this time without reference to previous epochs of objects with the same catalog ID).

Changing IDs of the cataloged numbers is also "normal" too - I mean that 39268 became 39276 and 39265 ceased to exist and the number reassigned to a different object. And that's also very annoying, because it means the numbers DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. You can't have any confidence that two elsets with the same catalog number refer to the same object.

Thanks for the insight. So, the 5-digit catalog ID is not a primary key in the database sense and consequently referential integrity is NOT a given when following individual objects across different epochs.

Sadly, this is correct. There are two forms of this: accidental mis-tagging (e.g. when two GEO satellites pass close to each other and they get confused as to which is which - understandable and excusable) - and this deliberate re-tagging, which is bad.

Quote

So much about the lessons learned.

welcome to my world... :-)

Quote

catID label obj. peri x apo [km]39247* F9 R/B DEB W? 715 732?

*) some objects like 39247 show up in the satellite catalog but are missing in other TLE views

I had missed this. 39247 was originally reserved for 2013-047B, the Minotaur 5th stage for LADEE.They have apparently decided that they aren't ever going to find it (it's in a deep orbit) and are reusing the number. However: - they haven't renamed 2013-047C yet - expect it to become 047B in a while. - the SATCAT apogee/perigee data show a 700 km x 70 deg orbit, not related to either the CASSIOPE or LADEElaunches (possibly a 1969-082 debris object?), and there are no TLEs. - They have another 2013-055W.So looks like another foulup.

Why does CUSAT 2 keep coming up? It never even launched. Can we assume that object is also "F9 Deb"?

It's the Falcon 9 second stage. Somehow STRATCOM thinks that CUSAT 2 was attached to it. I am sure they'll fix it soon.

The reason why is STRATCOM never received the memo from the CUSAT 2 Team and the memo from Elon that it was not on board. ;) Maybe STRATCOM's CUSAT 2 entry is actually replaced by ElonSat 1, which is either a cheese or Ice Cream longitivtiy test.

Do we have any real idea what the debris objects are if not insulation? And if so, based on what (other than orbital longevity of the items)?

To be blunt no one here knows anything for certain. It's all just speculation. Most likely, this will never be fully cleared up. I don't think SpaceX will be giving a qualified response that is satisfactory to everyone. They've already moved on to the next launch.

I don't think SpaceX will be giving a qualified response that is satisfactory to everyone. They've already moved on to the next launch.

So much for a thorough root cause analysis.

Zoe

Oh please. You have no knowledge of what happened exactly, what information they have or do not have, and what steps they have taken to mitigate the problem.Implying that they have not done a thorough root cause analysis is disingenuous. They have no reason whatsoever to give a qualified response to everyone; Mark is right. They only have to give a qualified response to their partners, not to the public. The fact we do not get to know what exactly went wrong is not sufficient cause to argue that they have not done thorough root cause analysis.

In order to be able to "buy" or not buy an answer, the answer is required to be given in the first place. Not having answers leads to questions and speculations, which itself eventually leads to flak from the fanboys ;)

I think that fatjohn's question is a good one, I'm curious to what the responses to it will be.

In order to be able to "buy" or not buy an answer, the answer is required to be given in the first place. Not having answers leads to questions and speculations, which itself eventually leads to flak from the fanboys ;)

I think that fatjohn's question is a good one, I'm curious to what the responses to it will be.

Zoe

I'm with you, Zoe. While that info would be wonderful, I doubt satisfying internet speculations is at the top of their to-do list. I'd hazard to guess that their customers will have a satisfactory answer, but we may not get that.

I get a little frustrated sometimes with the implied lack if truthfulness that sometimes appears, just because we aren't privy to all the data.

IF it was insulation coming off, how come pieces 39277 and 39278 have a semi-major axis that is 50-55 km larger than the F9 upper stage? Where did the energy come from?

If I'm correct it corresponds with the equivalent energy of about 15m/s Delta-V

Insulation caught by the venting from the stage could easily get that sort of push. The fact that it is insulation is shown by the rapid atmospheric decay, which is a sign of a high surface area to mass ratio.

IF it was insulation coming off, how come pieces 39277 and 39278 have a semi-major axis that is 50-55 km larger than the F9 upper stage? Where did the energy come from?

If I'm correct it corresponds with the equivalent energy of about 15m/s Delta-V

Insulation caught by the venting from the stage could easily get that sort of push. The fact that it is insulation is shown by the rapid atmospheric decay, which is a sign of a high surface area to mass ratio.

Perhaps, pretty severe venting though 30+ mph.But if it is all insulation, I hope they'll do something about that too. Not all missions will go to orbits where that insulation will rapidly decay (the two objects that I highlighted have perigee's of over 450 km). 20 scattered pieces of foam for every launch means ~240 pieces per year according to their manifest. Thanks but no thanks.

Why have there been no details posted, especially video, related to the 1st stage reentry, not-as-hard-as-usual ocean intersection, and parts recovery. SpaceX made significant mention of this post-launch, and indicated that video would be posted by weeks end. I searched the web and NSF, but found nothing. Anyone know any more details about impact speed and what survived?

Why have there been no details posted, especially video, related to the 1st stage reentry, not-as-hard-as-usual ocean intersection, and parts recovery.

L2 has some!

Quote

SpaceX made significant mention of this post-launch, and indicated that video would be posted by weeks end. I searched the web and NSF, but found nothing

That was Elon during a teleconference, not SpaceX. He has a bit of a tendency to overpromise his video releases. I can also imagine Elon saw the video, said it was cool, and wanted to release it - only for company laywers to note some ITAR related stuff in them, or PR deciding that a video of a spinning first stage is not good PR - kinda like people still commenting on hot-fire tests on pad with "it failed! it didn't lift off! booh spacex!".

Also, it might still come out. Highlight video, anyone? Don't know if they will make one, but that's where I'd look for images of this. Perhaps there won't be one, though since they missed some of the video from the webcast and they decide incomplete video is worse than no video. So, you did not miss anything regarding the video.

Here's some info from an in-the-know site with some details about what they recovered! ;)http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/musk-plans-reusability-falcon-9-rocket/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/musk-plans-reusability-falcon-9-rocket/)

Quote

“The first stage hit the water relatively hard,” noted Musk. Despite the impact, SpaceX still managed to recover portions of the first stage which includes according to preliminary reports, the inter-stage, a number of the components from the engine bay, and some of the composite overwrap pressure vessels.

IF it was insulation coming off, how come pieces 39277 and 39278 have a semi-major axis that is 50-55 km larger than the F9 upper stage? Where did the energy come from?

Presuming its pieces of insulation, if a lightweight piece of insulation gets caught in the exhaust gasses while the stage is accelerating in the opposite direction then I could imagine quite the spread in velocities from that.

If its foam of some sort then they would have a significant drag/mass ratio and would lose velocity much faster than the stage.

These two effects could combine for an even greater difference. There could be others. I came up with these off the top of my head without any deep thought on the issue. We're not talking about well controlled craft here.

In order to be able to "buy" or not buy an answer, the answer is required to be given in the first place. Not having answers leads to questions and speculations, which itself eventually leads to flak from the fanboys ;)

I think that fatjohn's question is a good one, I'm curious to what the responses to it will be.

Zoe

I'm with you, Zoe. While that info would be wonderful, I doubt satisfying internet speculations is at the top of their to-do list. I'd hazard to guess that their customers will have a satisfactory answer, but we may not get that.

I get a little frustrated sometimes with the implied lack if truthfulness that sometimes appears, just because we aren't privy to all the data.

Exactly my point. I am sure the answer is known and has been told to the required parties. There is no reason to inform us. We most likely will be kept in the dark.

Exactly my point. I am sure the answer is known and has been told to the required parties. There is no reason to inform us. We most likely will be kept in the dark.

It does not affect me (as a non US citizen), but considering that so many millions of tax dollars went to Space-X, I would be disappointed if all the return I get is some video with drop outs and some text messages with 140 characters length. But of course, ymmv.

Exactly my point. I am sure the answer is known and has been told to the required parties. There is no reason to inform us. We most likely will be kept in the dark.

It does not affect me (as a non US citizen), but considering that so many millions of tax dollars went to Space-X, I would be disappointed if all the return I get is some video with drop outs and some text messages with 140 characters length. But of course, ymmv.

Zoe

Huh? This was an entirely commercial flight. The only millions of US tax dollars being sent to SpaceX are NASA contract awards for CRS and the various other Dragon related contracts.

Of course you are correct, that our favorite site's intrepid reporters wrote up those details in the post-launch article. I was hoping there had been additional details released, either about more components recovered, or more details about the engine bay and tanks. I think the most interesting follow on stories are, a) what exactly did the impact look like (i.e. was the 1st stage intact when it hit? What was the impact velocity? What was the trajectory for the last 10km? Was it tumbling?) b) what is the plan of investigation, i.e. what can be learned from examining the recovered pieces or assemblies.

I must have overlooked that apparently no single NASA dollar went into the development of the launcher or the infrastructure. My bad.

Zoe

NASA got what they paid for. I don't see how that obliges SpaceX to reveal extensive details about a commercial mission.

I'm wondering if Arianspace would do any differently?

They publish some telemetry data during the launch, don't blank out a video if something goes wrong (most interesting of course the V501) and in most cases don't promise things they won't keep.

But you don't have to look across the ocean to compare. Just take a look at Orbital.

Although I fail to see what benefit there is in bringing in ArianeSpace into a Space-X discussion.

As I said, your mileage may vary and apparently does. I would be miffed if kept on such a short leash after those big promises, but as a stoopid furrin alien, I know I have to be happy to be kept stoopid and uninformed ;)

I must have overlooked that apparently no single NASA dollar went into the development of the launcher or the infrastructure. My bad.

Zoe

Are you suggesting that if any government money at all goes into a business, that business is now bound to open all aspects of their business up to any curious taxpayer? Nice thought but not terribly business-friendly!

I'm not sure what your followup post about being a stoopid furriner has to do with anything.

I must have overlooked that apparently no single NASA dollar went into the development of the launcher or the infrastructure. My bad.

NASA got what they paid for. I don't see how that obliges SpaceX to reveal extensive details about a commercial mission.

I suspect NASA will get the updates all their future customers will get - enough to convince them their payload will be in good hands.

Not sure if they get some additional info as part of NLS II certification?

cheers, Martin

Actually this goes back to CRS recertification, doesn't it? This was one of the qualification flights for the new/upgraded vehicle that they want to use for future CRS missions. I would think NASA will get all of the flight data.

IF it was insulation coming off, how come pieces 39277 and 39278 have a semi-major axis that is 50-55 km larger than the F9 upper stage? Where did the energy come from?

This is a super question that may never be answered.

Occam's Razor tells us that these pieces have something to do with the second stage engine not restarting, since there were two distinct unusual events occurring on the same day, the 2nd stage restart failure and lots of debris scattered all over the sky. Occam's Razor is not infallible, but it's a good start.

Updates only please! (What Robert said)Please take discussion of orbits and data releases, and what people want and assume, to the discussion threads.We don't want to have to call the Off-topic Sherrif!

As no firm has ever brought back a first stage in an attempted landing before. It would be time to consider patents and all the ramifications of the same. In the USA you can talk and publish about patents not yet granted. In most of the rest of the world you can not.Return video of a landing would contain many patent-able elements and possibly be viewed as publishing methods before a patent was granted let alone applied for. In the USA this is not a problem but the rest of the world it is.

No patent lawyer worth the title would approve of publishing that video at this time.Everything needs to be locked down with many successful landings and granted patents before it could be published ... unless hell froze over the rest of the world changed their patent laws.

As no firm has ever brought back a first stage in an attempted landing before. It would be time to consider patents and all the ramifications of the same. In the USA you can talk and publish about patents not yet granted. In most of the rest of the world you can not.Return video of a landing would contain many patent-able elements and possibly be viewed as publishing methods before a patent was granted let alone applied for. In the USA this is not a problem but the rest of the world it is.

No patent lawyer worth the title would approve of publishing that video at this time.Everything needs to be locked down with many successful landings and granted patents before it could be published ... unless hell froze over the rest of the world changed their patent laws.

nonsense. Musk said they would not apply for patents because the patent process releases more information on the subject

No one has posted this yet so here it is from http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/10/14/upgraded-falcon-9-mission-overview

Quote

On Sunday, Sept. 29th, SpaceX successfully completed the demonstration mission of its upgraded Falcon 9 rocket, delivering the CASSIOPE, CUSat, DANDE and POPACS satellites to their targeted orbits. All of the satellite owners are in contact with their spacecraft and are reporting nominal operations.

This was the first Falcon 9 launch using SpaceX’s new 17 foot diameter fairing, designed and built in house by SpaceX. The fairing separates using pneumatic pushers instead of explosives and is large enough to fit a city bus. This was also the first launch from SpaceX’s newly refurbished launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the first demonstration of a number of technologies on the upgraded vehicle.

On this mission, Falcon 9 lifted off with nine Merlin 1D engines, generating 1.3 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and increasing to 1.5 million pounds of thrust as it approached the vacuum of space—nearly twice the thrust than when previously powered by the Merlin 1C. The engines were configured in a more robust engine support structure called the Octaweb, which is easier to manufacture and improves the vehicles reliability. To fuel the more powerful engines, SpaceX extended the propellant tanks by approximately 60%. The upgraded vehicle featured a triple-redundant avionics system similar to that used on Dragon, providing a single-fault tolerant architecture. A new stage separation system reduced the number of connection points from 12 to 3, and the vehicle also flew with a stronger heat shield that allows the rocket to reenter Earth’s atmosphere and eventually land propulsively.

The flight proceeded according to plan, with a nominal first-stage flight and shutdown 2 minutes and 41 seconds after launch. Stage separation occurred at 2 minutes and 45 seconds, with MVac ignition following 7 seconds later. SpaceX's new fairing separated at approximately 3 minutes 32 seconds into launch. Nine minutes and 2 seconds into flight, the upper stage engine shut down. Approximately 14 minutes into flight, CASSIOPE was deployed directly at its target orbit of 325x1500km, 81 deg inclination. Each system performed as expected and all payloads were delivered to their intended destinations.

View from the onboard rocket cam looking down the first stage.

First stage separates 2 minutes and 45 seconds into the flight, prepares to reenter the Earth's atmosphere

Merlin Vacuum engine on the second stage ignites 7 seconds after stage separation

SpaceX's new fairing separates approximately 3 minutes and 32 seconds into launch, preparing for payload deployment

Nine minutes and 2 seconds into flight, the upper stage engine shuts down in preparation for payload deployment

Following separation of the last payload, SpaceX attempted an internal milestone of relighting the second stage. Conditions appeared satisfactory for relight of the upper stage engine as the stage flew over Antarctica. The engine initiated ignition, with pressure rising in the thrust chamber to about 400 psi, but the flight computer sensed conditions did not meet criteria and it aborted the ignition. SpaceX believes it understands the issue which didn’t involve anything fundamental, rather a need to iron out some of the differences between operating the engine on the ground versus in a vacuum. SpaceX has actually relit the Merlin engine in ground testing a dozen times in some cases and SpaceX is confident it can make the necessary adjustments before the next flight.

Despite reports to the contrary, the Falcon 9 second stage remained intact and healthy following spacecraft separation. It takes a few days to get the data from the Air Force Satellite Control Network into the SpaceX data system for review, but the data confirms the stage passed over Hawaii from approximately 1748 to 1754 Universal Time (10:48-10:54 PDT), roughly 1 hr 48 minutes after launch, starting into our second orbit. SpaceX still had power on the second stage, and the transmitters were left on to drain the batteries (standard procedure).

Though not a primary mission objective, SpaceX was also able to initiate two engine relights on the first stage. For the first restart burn, we lit three engines to do a supersonic retro propulsion, which we believe may be the first attempt by any rocket stage. The first restart burn was completed well and enabled the stage to survive reentering the atmosphere in a controlled fashion.

SpaceX then lit the center engine for a single engine burn. That relight also went well, however we exceeded the roll control authority of the attitude control thrusters. This particular stage was not equipped with landing gear which could have helped stabilize the stage like fins would on an aircraft. The stage ended up spinning to a degree that was greater than we could control with the gas thrusters on board and ultimately we hit the water relatively hard. However, SpaceX recovered portions of the stage and now, along with the Grasshopper tests, we believe we have all the pieces to achieve a full recovery of the boost stage.

This launch also marked the first of three certification flights needed to certify Falcon 9 to fly missions for the U.S. Air Force under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. When Falcon 9 is certified, SpaceX will be eligible to compete for all National Security Space (NSS) missions.

The next few months remain busy for SpaceX and the upgraded Falcon 9. We are currently preparing to launch our first geosynchronous transfer orbit mission out of Cape Canaveral with SES-8 followed by Thaicom and our next trip to the space station in the early part of next year.

Do we have any real idea what the debris objects are if not insulation? And if so, based on what (other than orbital longevity of the items)?

To be blunt no one here knows anything for certain. It's all just speculation. Most likely, this will never be fully cleared up. I don't think SpaceX will be giving a qualified response that is satisfactory to everyone. They've already moved on to the next launch.

SpaceX will, of course, have to study and understand the Falcon 9 debris creation issue and work to prevent a recurrence. It, and its payload customers, have multiple reasons to minimize orbital debris. Some of its customers are participating in the UN space debris committee and have agreed to follow its guidelines.

As I understand, the secondary payload dispenser is made by SpaceX, it was built for this specific mission, and this is also a 'first time product' for SpaceX. Is it possible that this devise can be the source of some extra objects ?

Doesn't DANDE have an adapter bracket that is released after separation as well? Is this already accounted for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_and_Atmospheric_Neutral_Density_ExplorerWiki says DANDE's adapter bracket is scheduled for release on day 14 after the launch. So, by now it should be a separate object.

Under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), signed by SpaceX and SMC in June 2013, SpaceX must meet rigorous certification requirements and perform at least three successful flights of a common launch vehicle configuration for the company to be considered for launching critical and high cost NSS payloads.

Certification requirements for the Falcon 9 v1.1 include at least three successful flights of a common launch vehicle configuration, as well as passing a number of technical reviews, audits and independent verification, and validation of the launch vehicle's ground systems and manufacturing processes. Where possible, the Air Force will work jointly with SpaceX to accelerate completing the requirements from these phases to expedite certification.

"This flight represents one of many certification requirements jointly agreed to between the Air Force and SpaceX," said Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, SMC commander.

SMC is still assessing the SpaceX' Falcon 9 v1.1 launches on Dec. 3, 2013 and Jan. 6, 2014 for their applicability towards the certification requirements. Additionally, the Air Force will remain engaged with SpaceX for resolution of any issues experienced during these flights and any planned system improvements.

SMC, located at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the U.S. Air Force's center of acquisition excellence for acquiring and developing military space systems. Its portfolio includes the Global Positioning System, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks, space based infrared systems and space situational awareness capabilities.

Right. I just think it's weird that LAAFB is putting out press releases for minor milestones. (And SpaceX has 2 USAF, non-EELV missions on contract.) I guess they're just trying to show Congress some progress. Rather base motives IMO.

Right. I just think it's weird that LAAFB is putting out press releases for minor milestones. (And SpaceX has 2 USAF, non-EELV missions on contract.) I guess they're just trying to show Congress some progress. Rather base motives IMO.

Why assume the worse? It could as simple as the base is excited about the prospect and it's a slow month for the PAO.